While research-based analysis of YiA aims to study all effects resulting from the projects – whether intended or not – it also specifically addresses intended effects at large reflected in the objectives of the YiA Programme. Numerous effects with respect to competence development which are also reflected in the YiA objectives have already been outlined in the previous section.
This section analyses responses to questions which were asked specifically in relation to the YiA objectives.
Coherence of projects with objectives and priorities of YiA
Overall, the projects funded through the YiA Programme are largely in line with the programme’s objectives and priorities. While each of the five general programme objectives originally was intended to be a guiding objective for one of the five Actions of the Programme, it shows that the five general objectives are reported to be pursued in all Actions, although with different emphasis. This is also the case for the permanent programme priorities, which were intended as transversal priorities across all Actions (see Table 164, Table 165, Figure 4).
According to the project leaders, the vast majority of YiA projects were in line with the very general objective of most international youth exchanges, namely fostering mutual understanding between young people in different countries: almost 90% of the projects leaders report that their projects were at least to a considerable extent in line with this objective.
Ranking very high in the compliance with the objectives and priorities were projects promoting young people’s respect for cultural diversity, to promote intercultural learning and to fight against racism and xenophobia, and projects aimed at developing solidarity and promoting tolerance among young people in order to foster social cohesion in the European Union (around 85% of the projects were reported to be in line with these objectives/priorities at least to a considerable extent).
Approximately 75% of the project leaders report that their projects were promoting at least to a considerable extent young people’s active citizenship and their European citizenship. While this can be considered to be successful, it still suggests that approaches and methods might be developed to pursue these core objectives and priorities of the YiA Programme more effectively, being aware that this is a challenging task – not only within the YiA Programme, but in society at large.
Similarly, further measures could be developed to include more young people with fewer opportunities into the YiA programme: around half of the project leaders report that their projects were in line with this permanent priority. While this is a very difficult task, this is one of the challenges of making YiA a programme that is really accessible for as many young people as possible – a youth mobility programme for all.
Some of the YiA Programme objectives are in fact more focussed on specific Actions, in particular the objective to contribute to developing the quality of support systems for youth activities and the capabilities of civil society organisations in the youth field, and to promote European cooperation in the youth field. The large majority of projects funded under Action 4 or Action 5 are reported to have been in line with these objectives at least to some extent (see Table 166).
Across all project types, YE, T&N and YD show the strongest coherence with YiA objectives and priorities (the latter being based on a relatively small sample). YI projects show a strong coherence with respect to the inclusion of young people with fewer opportunities, but a rather weak coherence with respect to other objectives and priorities. SD and EVS projects cover a broad range between high and low coherence with the YiA objectives and priorities, but none of them show the highest coherence compared with all other project types.
Effects on participants related to YiA objectives and priorities
Effects on the competence development related to YiA objectives and priorities (see European Commission, 2010; European Parliament and Council, 2006a) have already been described in detail in the previous section. This section also addresses action-oriented effects – which are difficult to assess because the timespan between the project and the survey is rather brief as to have time to experience and reflect on an actual change of behaviour.
Overall, the strongest effect can be observed with respect to an increased interest in European issues (52%) – an indicator for the priority on European citizenship. Less developed was the support for disadvantaged people (which increased for 39% of the participants) – reflecting the priority on inclusion of young people with fewer opportunities, participation in societal and/or political life (35%) – reflecting the priority on participation of young people – and commitment to work against discrimination, intolerance, xenophobia or racism (34%) – an indicator for the priority on cultural diversity. Less than 10% of the participants indicate a decrease with respect to these issues (see Table 161, Figure 4).
Partly this is supported by observations and perceptions of project leaders (see Table 173) who report that participants ‘increasingly began to ask questions about European topics’ (73%
‘somewhat true’ or ‘very true’) and who assume that participants ‘intend to get more involved in social and political life’ (79% ‘somewhat true’ or ‘very true’).
A more diversified picture appears when differentiating by project type – with differences between 18 and 24 percentage points between the responses from the different project types (see Table 162):
the most distinct effects are shown for T&N projects which rank high on interest in European issues (56% increase), support for disadvantaged people (45%) and commitment against discrimination, intolerance, xenophobia or racism (42%); the increase in participation in societal and/or political life (37%) reflects the average;
EVS shows a relatively high increase for interest in European issues (56%), but a relatively low increase for participation (25%); this is surprising since EVS participants often are placed in civil society organisations – this needs to be explored further through qualitative methods;
SD projects show a relatively high increase for participation of young people (49%) and support for disadvantaged people (44%);
TCP activities show a relatively high increase for interest in European issues (56%) and are within average for the other items;
YD projects show a relatively low increase for the commitment against discrimination, intolerance, xenophobia or racism (22%) and the support of people with fewer opportunities (26%); this is surprising since these are issues related to democracy which is at the core of this project type; these results require further exploration through qualitative methods;
YI projects show a relatively low increase for interest in European issues (38%) – which could be expected but also reflects the challenge for these projects to include a European dimension;
YE projects show an average increase for all items and slightly less for youth participation – the latter reflecting a challenge for YE project organisers.
Again, these effects reported by the participants are partly confirmed by the observations and perceptions of project leaders, in particular with respect to an increased interest in European issues and increased participation in public life (see Table 174).
It is remarkable that participants in T&N report the largest effects across all items related to the permanent priorities. This could be linked to the fact that these projects have a clearly educational dimension and are designed and implemented accordingly.
A differentiation between the effects on the ‘sending’ and on the ‘hosting’ side, indicates the following outcome (see Table 163):
significantly more ‘sending’ participants report an increase for interest in European issues than ‘hosting’ participants – which confirms the challenge to introduce a European dimension for those ‘staying at home’;
the increase of commitment against discrimination, intolerance, xenophobia or racism is significantly higher (very significant) for ‘sending’ participants than for ‘hosting’
participants; an explanation could be that it is more difficult to take a stand against discrimination in one’s own than in a foreign environment due to peer pressure, less anonymity and potentially on-going exposure and confrontation;
the increase of participation is reported to be highly significantly higher for ‘hosting’
participants than for ‘sending’ participants, presumably due to stronger involvement in the preparation and organisation of the project – thus reflecting participation.
Specific aspects of European citizenship
A separate question addressed specifically effects related to selected aspects of European citizenship (see Table 167, Table 168):
80% of the responding participants indicate that the participation in the project has made them ‘more receptive for Europe’s multiculturality’ (47% ‘definitely’, 33% ‘to some extent’), thus developing intercultural competence; in particular participants in YE, EVS and T&N projects have reported this (86% to 88%);
81% report that the project has raised their awareness of European values (human rights, democracy, peace, tolerance, gender equality etc.)’, which basically represent core values related to democratic citizenship; in particular participants in YE, EVS and T&N projects have reported this (83% to 86%)
66% report that they ‘feel more as a European’ (36% ‘definitely’, 30% ‘to some extent’) – thus assuming a supra-national identity linked to European citizenship; in particular participants in YE an T&N projects have reported this (71% to 72%);
68% indicate that the project has raised their awareness of disadvantaged people – which is linked to the priority on the inclusion of young people with fewer opportunities; in particular participants in EVS, T&N and SD projects have reported this (72% to 75%).
The participants’ responses on their increased receptiveness of multiculturality and European identity are confirmed by observations and perceptions of the project leaders (see Table 173).
The percentages of ‘sending’ participants reporting an increased intercultural receptiveness, a raised awareness of European values or a stronger European identity is higher than the respective
percentages ‘hosting’ participants (highly significant difference; see Table 169). This indicates that the European citizenship tends to be fostered more strongly by an experience in another country.
Image of the European Union
Indirectly linked to the objectives and priorities on promoting European citizenship is the question on the effects of the project on the image of the European Union (see Table 152): for more than one quarter of the participants the image of the European Union has improved (28%
of the participants in non-RAY countries, including from outside the European Union); for more than 70% the image has not changed, and for around 1% it has become worse.
For YD projects the improvement of the image of the European Union is the highest (44%, see Table 153) which suggests that in these projects the positive aspects of the European Union are promoted more strongly, but it also needs to be considered that the sample for this project type is relatively small. For YE, T&N and TCP activities the improvement is above average, for YI, EVS and SD projects the improvement is around or below average – with SD projects having the lowest percentage (22%). The latter suggests that SD projects lead to a more critical view of the European Union than the other project types.
The improvement of the image of the European Union is very diverse in different countries:
between 38% in the Netherlands and 16% in Austria (but it needs to be considered that the samples for these countries are relatively small). Relatively high is the improvement also in Bulgaria (33%) and Sweden (31%), and above average in Poland and Hungary (see Table 154).
No real pattern can be recognised and therefore a deeper analysis would need to be undertaken at national level, taking into consideration national policies and data on the image of the EU in the respective countries.
While an improvement of the image of the European Union reported by a quarter of the participants could be considered minimal, it needs to be understood in perspective: on the one hand, this improvement results also from projects with a relatively short duration of intensive experiences (sometimes only a few weeks); on the other hand, there is no data about the image of the participants of the European Union prior to their project experience. As for the latter, in autumn 2010 (the period around which most of the projects surveyed ended) 38% of the Europeans report that they have a positive image of European Union, 40% a neutral image and 20% a negative image (see European Commission, 2011, p. 46).
A comparison by country shows that the image of the European Union is generally better the later the country joined the European Union (see European Commission, 2011, p. 47). On the other hand, the improvement of the image of the European Union as an effect of YiA projects does not indicate such a correlation (see Figure 3). Further studies would be needed to explore to what degree the YiA participants were representative in this respect before the project and how the improvement is distributed over the three groups (positive, neutral, negative) shown in the Eurobarometer survey.